But as we all know Venus regularly transits the sun. At intervalls of 8 years, 121.5 years, 8 years, and 105.5 years, it passes between the sun and earth, so that its plasmasphere/tail brushes the earth's magnetosphere.

Since the orbits are tilted, the planets seldom are in a direct line with the Sun. Additionally, although the plasmasphere tail Venus is very long, it does not quite extend to Earth. However, it is possible for the Moon to fall into place in such a conjunction, and provide a remaining path to the circuit.

I could be wrong but I believe the Moon is the only satellite of any planet to enter/exit its host planets plasmasphere. Which opens a whole can of worms

There would be an incubation period (3 months). SARS had such a conjunction 3 months previous to the first outbreak. So did The Great Influenza ... cases were reported on either side of the Atlantic nearly simultaneously for the latter.

"I decided to believe, as you might decide to take
an aspirin: It can't hurt, and you might get better."
-- Umberto Eco Foucault's Pendulum (1988)

I'd like to think he sent himself - to learn, and then after a long time away - got to come home.

Like the "lost son" in the Bible

But it would be interesting to know how the origin of Saturn is explaned by the EU.
Did it come from an other solar system ?

Hi Rickard,

Accourding to EU:
Saturn was a star first with its own satellites (together with the Earth), Saturn was our primeval star (Kronos). The complete saturn system was adopted by Sol (our current sun), a younger hotter star than Saturn.

Saturn was probably a red star/brown dwarf before being captured by Sol.
---

According to Wal Thornhill Saturn was initially a brown dvarf star that entered our solar system.
From where did it came ?

I can't speak for Wal, but according to my understanding Saturn was captured by the Sun. So the answer to your question is interstellar space.
Keep in mind, that presently of the 10 closest stellar systems to our Sun there are 15 known stars and 11 of those are brown or red dwarfs (and none of these dwarfs are visible to the naked eye.)
see:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_n ... own_dwarfs

From this it is a safe assumption that brown and red dwarfs are the most common stellar types in the galaxy. Also, one can safely assume that there is a continuum of celestial objects where some are "in between" or intermediate objects. Hence the often used description of the present day Jupiter and Saturn as failed or dark stars.

In the EU paradigm the position of a star on the Hertsprung-Russell diagram describes its electrical state and that is subject to change as the ambient electrical environment changes. This is in contrast to the mainstream's interpretation that the H-R diagram depicts slow stellar evolution.

Where was it created ?

Consistent with the Electric Star model we can assume that the hypothesized proto Saturn was created in one of two ways.
1. In a molecular gas (plasma) cloud through a z pinch of a galactic birkeland current
2. or, it fissioned from a larger stellar object, which went nova while under electrical stress (from a galactic birkeland current)

During the polar configuration, would the Earth's axis not have been been turned 90 degrees, the north pole facing the south pole of Mars, thus setting the geographical poles at the equator and the equator along the lines of the magnetic poles? This seems highly implausible, but if I'm misunderstanding it all, I'd like an explanation.

Hi 3circi,
Perhaps this should be in the new ideas section.
The Hudson Bay would have been facing one hemisphere of Mars all the time and this hemisphere lost crustal material in this configuration. This is why one hemisphere of Mars has less crust than the opposite hemisphere.

Whether the Mars - Earth axis rotated is debatable. Perhaps only occasionally would this axis line up with the Sun. If Jupiter or Saturn or both lined up with this Sun - Earth - Mars axis then huge electrical currents might have flowed then. In my theory this would have been responsible for the major destructions like the dinosaur extinction and also for the production of the oceans.

During the polar configuration, would the Earth's axis not have been been turned 90 degrees,

90 degrees with respect to what?

the north pole facing the south pole of Mars

Yes, that is my understanding although it may not have been exact(?)

thus setting the geographical poles at the equator and the equator along the lines of the magnetic poles? This seems highly implausible, but if I'm misunderstanding it all, I'd like an explanation.

The geographic poles would be the two places where the axis of rotation meets the surface of the planet. Why would you conclude that they were at the equator? There is no reason for that and that is not what is described in the hypothesis/model.

I made an image showing what I mean to try and make it easier. The geographical poles would be at the equator because the magnetic (and current geographical poles) would be lined up with that of Mars, and Mars that of Venus, and so on, if my (probably flawed) understanding of the polar configuration is correct.https://i.imgur.com/k2YevxB.jpg
Most orbital models I've seen don't display it like this but explain it as if it is to my understanding. I'd like some corrections overall.

A geographical pole is where the axis of spin intersects the Earth's surface. So, yes, the Earth's axis would have been tilted 90 degrees to what it is today. So the geographical pole back then would have been where todays equator is now in terms of our relationship to Saturn, say, but that is a confusing statement.

The linear configuration of planets was supposed to be outside the Solar System, and then entered later. In your diagram you have the ice as if heat was coming from Saturn or from the Sun to the left. Then the ice would be spread out in a ring which would be the equator because the North Pole faced Mars. Most of the heating would have been electrical anyway, and thus conditions might have been pretty similar worldwide.

My theory has a similar configuration of Earth and Mars, but has them at where the asteroid belt is now, with only the occasional alignment with Saturn and Jupiter then. No ice.

So, yes, the Earth's axis would have been tilted 90 degrees to what it is today. So the geographical pole back then would have been where todays equator is now in terms of our relationship to Saturn, say, but that is a confusing statement.

Moses, that is wrong. Where in the literature did you read that? Talbot and Cardona are the two main proponents of the Polar Configuration and unless I missed something, I cannot recall anywhere in their writings where the Earth's geographic pole, ie the axis of rotation, was placed at the equator. If I am missing something then please give me a reference on that.

Nick, I was just trying to get where 3circi was coming from. I think 3circi was talking about the relationship of the axis to Saturn. Now the axis is pointing away from Saturn whereas in the configuration the Earth's axis is pointing towards Saturn. I did not write that the Earth's axis was at the equator.

In actual fact we do not know where the axis was pointing in the Saturn System configuration in terms of where it is pointing now. I guess there is a theory that it was pointing in generally the same direction as now, along with Mars and Saturn, however I cannot see them keeping their orientation considering the enormous interactions they must have gone through to end up where they are now. And this is one of the main reasons I drifted away from the Saturn System theory.

Perhaps the best starting point would be to realize that Saturn appeared in Canopus, and work from there?
From the mythology, ( Hamlet’s Mill is a good read, to start), we see that Earth’s North Pole was once in Canopus. Knowing that in earlier times, constellations were often named after their brightest star, it just means that Earth’s North Pole was in the constellation containing Canopus, or at what is now Earth’s south ecliptic pole. So we have (if we are to trust the mythology), the alignment of planets along what is now the solar system axis.

Just to make that clear, planets were not aligned in what is now the solar system plane ( the ecliptic plane, more or less), but strung out on the ecliptic axis. That’s nearly 90 degrees from where they appear now.

At any rate, all I’m suggesting is to pin the planetary alignment tobackground stars first, then see how our solar system fits in that.

For example, Dave Talbott was willing to consider that planets were aligned in the solar system plane. This would be explainable even in the gravity only model, by having each planet at a Lagrangian point. But that would put the planetary alignment not only 90 degrees from where we saw it, but more importantly, we would expect that alignment to sweep out 180 degrees compared to background stars. Again, the ancient records are clear, that the planets were strung out along the current solar system axis, with Earth itself being inverted almost 180 degrees. (Canopus not even visible from Earth’s north polar region today.)